Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC218; 2010(1)AWC158(SC); JT2009(10)SC410; 2009(II)OLR(SC)597; (2009)8SCC257:2009AIRSCW5886:2009(5)LHSC2929:2009(10)Scale566
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Source of power on the part of the Reserve Bank of India to issue circulars and guidelines as regards one time settlement is the question involved herein. It arises out of a judgment and order dated 1.02.2008 passed in Review Petition No. 7 of 2008 and order dated 21.11.2007 passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 8267 of 2007 whereby and whereunder an order dated 13.04.2007 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (for short 'the Appellate Tribunal') directing the respondent - bank to settle the case of the appellants herein in terms of the said guidelines as applicable at the time of declaring the account as Non Performing Assets (NPA) and not to recover the said amount in terms of the judgment and recovery certificate dated 23.11.2006 issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal - II, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No. 26 of 2007, was set aside.3. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the fac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(13)SC180; 2009(II)OLR(SC)525
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the State has any power of review in the matter of grant of sanction in terms of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 197.3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.Respondent was working as Block Development and Panchayat Officer. A First Information Report was lodged against him on or about 6.9.2001 under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Upon completion of investigation, the Vigilance Department sought for sanction from the competent authority so as to enable it to prosecute the respondent. By an order dated 15.12.2002, grant of such sanction was refused. The matter, however, was placed before the competent authority once again and on or about 14.9.2004 sanction to prosecute the respondent was granted. Questioning the legality and/or validity of the said order, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(1)AWC539(SC); JT2009(10)SC187; 2009(5)LHSC3130; 2009AIRSCW7461
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Leave granted.2. These two appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow on August 22, 2007 whereby the High Court although upheld the order of the transfer of Karvendra Singh (hereinafter referred to as, 'Writ Petitioner') but quashed the order of transfer of Rajendra Singh (hereinafter referred to as, 'Respondent No. 5'). Both, Writ Petitioner and Respondent No. 5, are aggrieved by the order of the High Court and hence, these two appeals by special leave.2. The Writ Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 are in the revenue service of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Both of them are Sub-Registrar. By an Office Order dated July 31, 2007 issued by I.G. Registration, Writ Petitioner, working as Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad has been transferred to Hapur-II while Respondent No. 5, working as Sub-Registrar, Hapur-II has been transferred to Ghaziabad-IV. The transfer order dated July 31, 2007 came to be challenged by the Writ Petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006ACJ2651; 2009(4)AWC3169(SC); 2009(10)SCALE412:2009AIRSCW7162:2009(5)LHSC3166
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Khairati Lal (deceased) and the appellants herein were residents of a village known as Khamano Mandi. On or about 11.03.1998, at 8 a.m., they were proceeding to another village on a scooter. Kanwar Ram and Ramesh Kumar were following them on another scooter. One Trala (a goods carrier) struck the scooter of Khairati Lal near a village known as Pahar Kalan. The said vehicle was being driven by Shri Nidhan Singh. As a result of the said accident, the appellants herein as also Khairati Lal fell down on the road. Whereas Khairati Lal and the appellant Sheela Rani, wife of the deceased suffered head injuries, left leg of the appellant Budhwanti was crushed under the wheels of the vehicle. They were taken to the A.P. Jain Hospital, Patiala for treatment. Khairati Lal succumbed to his injuries in the hospital.3. Contending that the said accident had taken place owing to rash and negligent driving of Nidhan Singh, three claim applications were filed before the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(1)AWC537(SC); JT2009(13)SC643; (2009)13SCC693
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 4.2.2008 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 5255 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant questioning the validity of a judgment and order dated 9.1.2008 has been dismissed.3. Appellant was a dealer in High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil. Business in the said commodity is governed by the U.P. High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution) Order, 1981 (for short, '1981 Order'). The said 1981 Order has been framed in terms of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Appellant was granted a licence for dealing in the said commodities in terms of the said 1981 Order on or about 1.4.1990, which was renewed till 31.3.2010. Indisputably, on the premise that he had violated the terms and conditions of the said licence, the Licensing Au...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC47; JT2009(10)SC172; 2009AIRSCW5541; 2009(5)LHSC3153
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Bammiyampatti is a small village situated in the District of Salem in the State of Tamil Nadu. Amongst others, it is inhabitated by two communities known as `Naidu' community and `Adi Dravida' community. The fact that there has been longstanding enmity between the members of the said communities is not in dispute.3. A function was to be organized by Adi Dravida community. Rangasamy, deceased was having a grocery shop. He despite being belonging to the Naidu community, permitted the members of the other community to take electricity from his shop. Having come to learn of the same, the accused persons, originally eight in number, got infuriated. Rangasamy was threatened with dire consequences for his act in supplying electrical energy to the members belonging to the Adi-Dravida community at about 10 p.m. on 29.03.1997. Next morning, i.e., on 30.03.1997, at about 11.30 a.m., the accused persons came to his shop with casuarina sticks, trespassed therein an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009CriLJ4421; JT2009(13)SC464; (2009)8SCC727
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant-Madhavpura Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd. (the bank) is a banking organisation incorporated and registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. It is now under a reconstruction scheme as contemplated by Section 15(b) of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (for short, the '1984 Act') since repealed and replaced by the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. The said reconstruction scheme was framed as directed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation of the Government of India.3. The bank at present is managed by a Board of Management constituted in terms of the said scheme. Indisputably, the Board of Directors of the bank was superseded and an Administrator was appointed by an order dated 15.3.2001 in terms of Sub-section (7) of Section 58 of the 1984 Act. Allegedly, the Administrator, after his appointment unearthed a large scale scam and defalcation of money made by several pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(12)SC509; (2010)ILLJ247SC; 2009(10)SCALE621; 2009AIRSCW5905
R.M. Lodha, J.1. This group of six appeals by special leave involving identical issues was heard together and is being disposed of by a common judgment.2. In Civil Appeal No. 3002/2007, both the parties are represented by their counsel and, therefore, we deem it appropriate to take up the facts from this appeal.3. The appellants, UP. State Sugar Corporation Limited, (for short, 'Corporation'), is engaged in manufacture of white crystal sugar by vaccum process. The sugar Unit is a seasonal Unit which functions for a period of about 5 months in a year depending upon the allocation of sugar cane to the concerned Unit by the Cane Commissioner, UP.. During the crushing season 1996-1997, the appellant engaged Niraj Kumar, the respondent No. 1 (for short, 'workman'), purely on temporary/daily wages basis. According to the Corporation, the workman was engaged as weighment Clerk as an additional hand in the mid of the crushing season 1996-97 i.e. from January 1, 1997; the workman worked upto Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(10)SC180; 2009(10)SCALE307; (2009)13SCC662
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. This is an appeal by the complainant against the judgment and order of acquittal by the High Court of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No. 933/2000 which upheld the order of acquittal of all the accused by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 274/99.2. The deceased, Arunbhai and Popatbhai Manilal, Jayantibhai Manilal and Ishwarbhai Manilal were residents of Bapalal Ghanchi's Chawl, Chamanpura, Ahmedabad. Champaben Govindbhai Patni, the complainant, the mother of the deceased, was married to Govindbhai, who was at the material time working in Mumbai. They have three sons and three daughters, the deceased Arunbhai, being the eldest of the sons. The deceased, a rickshaw- puller by profession, was married 10 years back to Madhuben. She is the daughter of Chamanbhai Popatbhai, the uncle of the accused persons. But at the time of the incident Madhuben was not staying in the family of the deceased.3. The case of the prosecution is that on 18...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(12)SC425; 2009(11)SCALE406
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Application for exemption from filing O.T. is allowed.3. The State of Madhya Pradesh had filed a petition seeking special leave to appeal against a judgment given by a single judge at the Jabalpur Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (in Criminal Appeal No. 1539 of 1995). Prior to the impugned judgment of the High Court, a Special Judge at Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh had convicted the Respondent for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as `the Act']. In pursuance of the findings of the Special Judge, the Respondent had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 200-/- had also been imposed on him. Aggrieved by this result, the Respondent had filed an appeal before the High Court.4. The learned single judge of the High Court set aside the conviction and the sentence mainly on the ground that the requisite sanction order...
Tag this Judgment!